Search

Background: We developed a smartphone app—the SUCCESS (Supporting Culturally and Linguistically Diverse CKD Patients to Engage in Shared Decision-Making Successfully) app—to support Australian adults with kidney failure undertaking dialysis to actively participate in self-management and decision-making. The content of the SUCCESS app was informed by a theoretical model of health literacy that recognizes the importance of reducing the complexity of health information as well as providing skills necessary to access, understand, and act on this information. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of the SUCCESS app intervention. Methods: We designed a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the SUCCESS app plus usual care (intervention) to usual care alone (control). A total of 384 participants receiving in-center or home-based hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis will be recruited from six local health districts in the Greater Sydney region, New South Wales, Australia. To avoid intervention contamination, a pragmatic randomization approach will be used for participants undergoing in-center dialysis, in which randomization will be based on the days they receive hemodialysis and by center (ie, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday or Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday). Participants undergoing home-based dialysis will be individually randomized centrally using simple randomization and two stratification factors: language spoken at home and research site. Consenting participants will be invited to use the SUCCESS app for 12 months. The primary endpoints, which will be assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months of app usage, are health literacy skills, evaluated using the Health Literacy Questionnaire; decision self-efficacy, evaluated using the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale; and rates of unscheduled health encounters. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes (ie, quality of life, evaluated with the 5-level EQ-5D; knowledge; confidence; health behavior; and self-management) and clinical outcomes (ie, symptom burden, evaluated with the Palliative care Outcome Scale–Renal; nutritional status, evaluated with the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment; and intradialytic weight gain). App engagement will be determined via app analytics. All analyses will be undertaken using an intention-to-treat approach comparing the intervention and usual care arms. Results: The study has been approved by Nepean Blue Mountains Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/ETH00910) and recruitment has begun at nine sites. We expect to finalize data collection by 2023 and publish the manuscript by 2024. Conclusions: Enhancing health literacy skills for patients undergoing hemodialysis is an important endeavor, given the association between poor health literacy and poor health outcomes, especially among culturally diverse groups. The findings from this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at conferences, and updates will be shared with partners, including participating local health districts, Kidney Health Australia, and consumers. The SUCCESS app will continue to be available to all participants following trial completion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice. Methods: In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke. Results: Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL. Conclusion: Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Providing access to an online psychological therapy program in cancer care did not result in significant uptake and engagement by patients, or referrals by cancer care professionalsDespite many opportunities for referral by cancer care professionals, only 2% resulted in a referral to the program. None of these referrals were taken upTwenty five patients self‐referred, however only seven (28%) matched the recommended criteria for the program of mild to moderate psychological distressPatient engagement in the program was low, with 11/25 (44%) patients completing at least one lessonCancer care professionals reported numerous barriers to use including patient barriers such as fatigue, and personal barriers such as forgetting to refer [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms.Methods: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.Results: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined.Conclusions: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues.Trial Registration: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective translation of evidence-based research into clinical practice requires assessment of the many factors that can impact implementation success. Research methods that draw on recognised implementation frameworks, such as the Promoting Action Research in Health Services (PARiHS) framework, and that test feasibility to gain information prior to full-scale roll-out, can support a more structured approach to implementation. Objective: This paper presents qualitative findings from a feasibility study in one cancer service of an online portal to operationalise a clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients. The aim of this study was to explore staff perspectives on the feasibility and acceptance of a range of strategies to support implementation in order to inform the full-scale roll-out. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen hospital staff holding a range of clinical, administrative and managerial roles, and with differing levels of exposure to the pathway. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, and themes were subsequently organised within the constructs of the PARiHS framework. Results: Barriers and facilitators that affected the feasibility of the online portal and implementation strategies were organised across eight key themes: staff perceptions, culture, external influences, attitudes to psychosocial care, intervention fit, familiarity, burden and engagement. These themes mapped to the PARiHS framework's three domains of evidence, context and facilitation. Conclusions: Implementation success may be threatened by a range of factors related to the real-world context, perceptions of the intervention (evidence) and the process by which it is introduced (facilitation). Feasibility testing of implementation strategies can provide unique insights into issues likely to influence full-scale implementation, allowing for early tailoring and more effective facilitation which may save time, money and effort in the long-term. Use of a determinant implementation framework can assist researchers to synthesise and effectively respond to barriers as they arise. While the current feasibility study related to a specific implementation, strategies such as regular engagement with local stakeholders, and discussion of barriers arising in real-time during early testing is likely to be of benefit to all researchers and clinicians seeking to maximise the likelihood of long-term implementation success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives and importance of the study: Adult literacy programs aim to empower learners to participate more effectively in everyday life. This includes programs with health content embedded in curricula to target health literacy. Adult learners who attend these programs represent a heterogeneous population, but include a high proportion of hard-to-reach or socially disadvantaged groups in terms of age, ethnicity, educational background, language and prevalence of learning disabilities. In 2014, we conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a health literacy program in adult basic education classes across New South Wales, Australia. This paper reports findings from a qualitative study exploring learners' experience of the course and its perceived impact on their lives, as well as their understanding and confidence about health. Study type: Qualitative interview study. Method: We conducted semistructured interviews as part of the evaluation of the 18-week health literacy program, with participants purposively recruited from six health literacy classes (n = 22). Researchers trained in qualitative methods interviewed adult learners either face to face or over the phone using a topic guide. Data was analysed using the Framework method, a matrixbased approach to thematic analysis. Results: The majority of interviewees were female, lived in metropolitan areas and were from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Most had existing self-reported health problems and inadequate functional health literacy. Most participants described positive impacts of the health literacy course on their language, literacy and numeracy skills, functional health literacy skills, and health knowledge. They also reported being able to translate this into health actions including interacting with providers, accessing and using healthcare, and managing health and illness (e.g. making healthier food choices). Learners also described positive social outcomes of the course, including feelings of connectedness and interpersonal trust within a new network of learners, and reported sharing new knowledge with others in their communities. Conclusions: The findings add value to existing limited evidence that has demonstrated the untapped potential of adult basic education to develop health literacy skills among socially disadvantaged groups. Learners valued the opportunity to share experiences in structured group learning, and reported confidence to transfer new knowledge into their home and wider social network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Consent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking. Materials and Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials. Results: Twenty‐two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty‐two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent—just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt‐out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success. Discussion: These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt‐in consent approach with the option of later opt‐out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt‐out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre‐existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure. Implications for Practice: Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt‐in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt‐out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available. This article reports on the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of oncology patients and health care professionals regarding biobanking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health service change is difficult to achieve. One strategy to facilitate such change is the clinical pathway, a guide for clinicians containing a defined set of evidence-based interventions for a specific condition. However, optimal strategies for implementing clinical pathways are not well understood. Building on a strong evidence-base, the Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG) in Australia developed an evidence and consensus-based clinical pathway for screening, assessing and managing cancer-related anxiety and depression (ADAPT CP) and web-based resources to support it - staff training, patient education, cognitive-behavioural therapy and a management system (ADAPT Portal). The ADAPT Portal manages patient screening and prompts staff to follow the recommendations of the ADAPT CP. This study compares the clinical and cost effectiveness of two implementation strategies (varying in resource intensiveness), designed to encourage adherence to the ADAPT CP over a 12-month period.Methods: This cluster randomised controlled trial will recruit 12 cancer service sites, stratified by size (large versus small), and randomised at site level to a standard (Core) versus supported (Enhanced) implementation strategy. After a 3-month period of site engagement, staff training and site tailoring of the ADAPT CP and Portal, each site will "Go-live", implementing the ADAPT CP for 12 months. During the implementation phase, all eligible patients will be introduced to the ADAPT CP as routine care. Patient participants will be registered on the ADAPT Portal to complete screening for anxiety and depression. Staff will be responsible for responding to prompts to follow the ADAPT CP. The primary outcome will be adherence to the ADAPT CP. Secondary outcomes include staff attitudes to and experiences of following the ADAPT CP, using the ADAPT Portal and being exposed to ADAPT implementation strategies, collected using quantitative and qualitative methods. Data will be collected at T0 (baseline, after site engagement), T1 (6 months post Go-live) and T2 (12 months post Go-live).Discussion: This will be the first cluster randomised trial to establish optimal levels of implementation effort and associated costs to achieve successful uptake of a clinical pathway within cancer care.Trial Registration: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]